Well, there it is then. Everyone just throw in the towel.

Well, there it is then. Everyone just throw in the towel.

quite right. i guess the 'jig is up'.listen... that sound you hear is not a turbine engine, it is a fat lady singing.damntion! i thought we were having fun, but i was wrong.goodbye cruel world.smashing my computer as we spea...

Core i7 980X @4.6 GHzMem 1600 MHzFSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 61 fps avgCore i7 2600K @3.8 GHz (turbo)Mem 1333 MHzFSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 65 fps avgCore i7 2600K @ 4.8 GHzAsus P8P67-DCorsair Dominator GT 2133 MHzEVGA GTX 260WD Velociraptor 600 GBEnermax Galaxy 1000 WSwiftech MCR 220 Drive / Apogee XTWindows 7 HP-64 bitFlight Simulator X ( no modified files)FSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 86 fps avg

@HLJames, Thanks very much for your benchmarks - everybody is wanting to know this exact comparison (980X@4 vs. SB@5). Were the 980X numbers using pretty much the same exact FSX and hardware (which video card did the 980X have)configuration as the Sandy Bridge? Do you need the 2133Mhz memory speed over and above maybe 1600 - haven't seen anybody else at this speed? What do you think would happen if you had a NV580 for the video card on the SB? Finally, if you have access to the PMDG 747 (or similar) and a complex airport - could you make similar comparison benchmarks? Is the 980X still available? Anyway - we are all appreciative to the benchmarks. By the way, what did you notice about fluidity (smoothness - lack of stutters) for your tests? Have you applied any tweaks at all to the fsx.cfg file for these systems?

Gentleman nice to share your results but actually personally I'm more interested to see FSX benchmarks

Hi whitav8 The video card on the Gulfie: XFX GTX 295, DD water block X2 SLICore i7 2600 K @ 4.8 GHzFSXMark07, Global High Cfg:1333 MHz 79 fps avg1600 MHz 82 fps avg1866 MHz 83.7 fps avgvccsa 1.025 v (red)

Hello!I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I have an inquiry to make:With all of the benchmarks that have been posted, and all of the controversy about how the new system REALLY works with FSX, wouldn't a video posted by someone with the SB setup be adequate proof of how the system works? That way, folks can see how FSX works under ACTUAL simulator conditions.I don't know squat about OC'ing, RAM speed and such, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.Cheers!Alan

About using a video as proof of performance, most of us use FRAPS as a means to record an FSX video, but the recording process (snapshotting a frame to disk) itself slows the framerates down considerably - perhaps from 55 fps down to 30 or maybe 25. If we used a video camea instead, that wouldn't be an issue but still the video might not show the quality of the FSX image and we would have to zoom in on the FPS printout sometimes. You really have to see it for yourself. Many of us have tried enough configurations that if you have a specific request of scenery and aircraft configuration, we might be able to estimate the performance for you. But, in general, the 2600K at 5.0Ghz experience is quite good.

Thanks for the 411! I wasn't aware that FRAPS itself put enough load on the system to affect FSX performance. I was thinking along the lines of the native FSX video capture (if that's still even a feature).As my signature shows I'm a dinosaur and still using using FS 2002, although with the current system I just acquired (older P4 3.0G HT) I'm getting BSOD's very frequently and cannot run FS at this time. I don't have the hardware nor the finances to make the jump to FS 2004, let alone FSX. But, that's another story.I was just interested in the impression that folks got from the new CPU, and based on many of the comments I thought "why can't a video serve as proof of the system's capability". But, you very kindly answered my question.Thanks again for the reply! Alan

Core i7 980X @4.6 GHzMem 1600 MHzFSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 61 fps avgCore i7 2600K @3.8 GHz (turbo)Mem 1333 MHzFSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 65 fps avgCore i7 2600K @ 4.8 GHzAsus P8P67-DCorsair Dominator GT 2133 MHzEVGA GTX 260WD Velociraptor 600 GBEnermax Galaxy 1000 WSwiftech MCR 220 Drive / Apogee XTWindows 7 HP-64 bitFlight Simulator X ( no modified files)FSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 86 fps avg

Many thanks: that's exactly the sort of comparison I've been waiting to see.Tim

@ HlJames - it appears that you were actually running the memory at 2133Mhz?? You supplied this data:Core i7 2600 K @ 4.8 GHzFSXMark07, Global High Cfg:1333 MHz 79 fps avg1600 MHz 82 fps avg1866 MHz 83.7 fps avgand the top value was 83.7, therefore to get 86fps, you were at 2133Mhz. What kind of super memory and timings are these Corsair Dominator GT 2133 MHz??Thanks much for real data!DaveP.S. The kind of FSMark07 fps that I saw for 980X at 4.0 Ghz was about 50 fps from Computer Pilot , Doug Horton author of Benchmarking articles. Does that seem correct that you see 61 fps at 4.6 Ghz (Mem at 1600 Mhz). The fps values are going WAY up!

Hi DaveVery good point about the two performance levels of Gulftown and if you go to the back of Computer Pilot Magazine you will see Jetline Systems Hellfire Series. They report FSXMark07, Global High Cfg: 62 fps avg. Experimenting with the mighty Gulftown microprocessor allows you to see the true nature of Flight Simulator. Those who optimize L3 cache (uncore) get performance level 60 and those who just thrash the floating cores get performance level 40.HLJAMESCore i7 2600K @ 4.8 GHzAsus P8P67-DCorsair Dominator GT 2133 MHz EVGA GTX 260WD Velociraptor 600 GBEnermax galaxy 1000WSwiftech MCR 220 Drive/Apogee XTWindows 7 HP-64 bit

@HLJames, I' m not sure what you are trying to tell us here. How can we "optimize L3 cache"?"Those who optimize L3 cache (uncore) get performance level 60 and those who just thrash the floating cores get performance level 40."Please explainDave

@HLJames, I' m not sure what you are trying to tell us here. How can we "optimize L3 cache"?"Those who optimize L3 cache (uncore) get performance level 60 and those who just thrash the floating cores get performance level 40."Please explainDave

Hi Dave,I can't confirm that the 2600K in an otherwise equal system consistantly outperforms the 980X in FSX, solely because I never owned one. What I can confirm is that when running at 5.0GHz it consistantly performs between 30 and 40% better than highly overclocked quad core i7's, as far as can be reasonably ascertained by direct comparison. That's purely in FPS. The additional smoothless can not be objectively measured, but it is even more substantial according to subjective feel. Are you swapping out the equipment on the company simulator?Kind regards,

@Stephen, I really would appreciate an actual test run of FSMark07 Global High from your system whenever you get a chance - I realize that it is just a single data point and doesn't show the remarkable improvement in smoothness. I wish that maybe there was a "bell curve" variance statistic for the whole run that focused on setting an internal/external fps limit (even though that changes a lot of things in how FSX runs) like 50 fps and then reported on what ratio of frames kept to that. Anyway, thanks for the general report on 30->40% faster fps with respect to a 930 at 4.0 Ghz or similar PC. The company that I am helping has both a 980X @ 4.0Ghz and a 2600K (but only with 1333 Mhz mem as yet) and I measured about 10->20% improvement over the 980X - so they might be nearly equivalent depending on the tuning, but I did think that the 2600K was smoother - no idea why. Again, what intrigues me is the comment in this thread by HLJames on L3 cache (uncore) tuning. I cannot as yet find any discussion on overclocking sites about that issue. He is suggesting a 30% improvement if you understand and tune for that issue.